This Is All You Have

Ignorance + Dogma =

2009-05-30T11:09:00.000-07:00

On my daily read of the blog Unreasonable Faith, I came upon something extremely saddening. Daniel Florien, author of the blog, posted an excerpt from a documentary which follows an African Community, whom is primarily of Christian faith, which believes that many of their children are witches and wizards. They exploit the children and put them in very dangerous situations. Many of the children are either disowned or even killed. If these people did not have these strong religious beliefs, they would have no reason to accuse their children of witchcraft. These people are not interpreting their religious texts much differently than most western believers, they just do so more literally. Religion is destructive, religion is dangerous.

Become a Follower

2009-05-30T11:08:00.000-07:00

If you have a Blogger account and you like what you are reading, please become a follower. If you do not already have an account, you can very easily create one. This will keep you up to date on my postings. If you agree or disagree with my thoughts, please comment and let me know. I will also be allowing comments from non-Blogger members as well, in hopes of stimulating discussions. When commenting, feel free to leave a link to your own personal blog or website.

The Burden of Proof

2009-05-28T22:03:00.000-07:00

Ricky Gervais, British comedian and actor, is very 'out' pertaining to his atheistic views. He makes a very simple argument about where the burden of proof truly does lie: not with the skeptic, but with the believer. This is not a new approach, however, one I thought worth mentioning.

Need I say more...

2009-05-26T13:41:00.001-07:00

Darn kids...

2009-05-17T10:15:00.001-07:00

Congressman's Son Won't Shut The Hell Up During Hearing

What have you got to lose?

2009-05-16T11:40:00.000-07:00

When the debate between a theist and an atheist begins to wind down, one final question is usually posed; a question that speaks more about the purpose and nature of religious thinking than any other: 'What if you are wrong?' (Don't you hate the 'What if's'?)

Following this line of reasoning takes us back to 17th century French Philosopher Blaise Pascal. In his life's work posthumously titled the Pensées, which literally translates to "thoughts," Pascal jotted down one final justification for monotheistic religion, namely Christianity. In the Pensées, Pascal posed the famous pragmatic (or problematic) argument, which is commonly referred to as, "Pascal's wager." It went as follows:

Either God does or does not exist. You can wager on the possibility that God does exist or on the probability that he does not exist. If you believe in God and he does in fact exist, you will receive eternal life. If you do not believe in God and he does exist, you will be punished with eternal damnation. Furthermore, if God does not exist you will have lost nothing in either case.

Pascal essentially wagered that "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." Often without notice, many theists use this argument as an end all defense of their beliefs. Initially, it sounds commonsensical and to many, more than enough reason to go 'all-in' for God. These are my responses, in no specific order, to the 'what if?' for God's existence.

This in no way progresses the argument to prove the existence of a theistic God.
This only furthers the idea that religion may just be a coping process developed to help deal with the consciousness of our immortality.
Would God not know that you are not sincere and only believing for fear of punishment?
What if the flying spaghetti monster, in his infinite power and love, ascended to the Earth and fed the hungry with his deliciously satisfying flying spaghetti tentacles to end world hunger and ended all wars and peace reigned.......and?
What if humans conquered the inevitability of a short mortal life and created life sustaining processes which enabled us to live millions, billions, or even an infinite number of years? We would have even less reason to believe.
What if....?
Do I need to go on?
I think I'll stop here.

Do you see what I am getting at with this? The 'What ifs' could really go on forever. Just because a proposition makes you feel better and helps you get through life, does not mean that it is necessarily true. A great response to the 'What if' questions in life, is provided below by YouTube-r "EyeDunno."

The Richard Dawkin video referenced in the video above, can be found below. Enjoy!

No Statement Can Bear Its Own Truth

2009-05-13T21:14:00.000-07:00

In each sector of our society, criticizing the basis for someone's religious beliefs has become taboo. The scrutiny of religious beliefs is sometimes encouraged in certain contexts, however, a line is drawn and is drawn incredibly thick. Religious beliefs have reached safe keeping from general inquiry and evidence that reveals incongruities and erroneous claims that, for example, pertain to the origins of life and the nature of the universe. The very basis for belief in religious statements raises suspicion. If the rationale applied to belief in religious claims were applied to any other beliefs about the world they would, at best, raise frequent skepticism. When questioning the validity of religious beliefs, the core responses are usually as follows, as adapted from Sigmund Freud's 1927 work, The Future of An Illusion (pg. 273).

They must be believed because our ancestors believed them.
We possess proofs which have been handed down from antiquity.
It is prohibited to raise questions of their authenticity, regardless of evidence and the progress of rational thought.

If we applied these same tactics to a belief in scientific propositions, such as Evolution, much skepticism and dispute would be raised. Society well knows why the premise of most religious doctrines is to become void of doubt: they are full of uncertainty.

"If all the arguments that are put forward for the authenticity of religious doctrines originate in the past, it is natural to look round and see whether the present, better able to judge in these matters, cannot also furnish such evidence. The whole of the religious system would become infinitely more credible if one could succeed...in removing the element of doubt from a single part of it" (pg. 274).

Although the religious say that it is because of this doubt that faith is such an important component of religious beliefs--they are not able to disprove the idea that their pious convictions more probably, may be the products of their own mental activity.

Question of The Week

2009-05-10T23:04:00.000-07:00

It is clearly evident when looking at the traditions of many peoples, religion is an important aspect of this cultural history. When looking at a geographical map of the world which indicates the distribution of religions, it is apparent that people generally adopt the religious ideals of their society and more coherently, that of their parents. Likewise, we are all subject to our personal histories. More so, all religious people make absolute truth claims about salvation and affirm the absolute sanctity of their religious doctrines over all others. A person of Muslim faith, who declares supreme truth concerning conceptions of divine ultimacy, could have just as easily been born into a family and a society which affirms the infallibility of a very different religious faith, such as Christianity. How can one make absolute truth claims about their religious convictions, when it was by pure chance that they were born into a society that affirms the religion in which they believe?

Religious Pluralism and The Diversity of The Anthropomorphic Religious Experience

2009-05-09T11:24:00.000-07:00

I recently sat down to write about my ideas on religious pluralism, the interpretation of religious texts and religious tolerance. I examined chapter three: Symbols of Faith, of Christian philosopher Paul Tillich's book, Dynamics of Faith (1957) as well as John Hick's thoughts on plurality of the religious experience.

John Hick is a Christian theologian as well as one of the foremost philosophers of religion to date. Hick rejects Christian exclusivism and instead promotes religious pluralism and universalism which in my eyes, is the only rational way to perceive religion, because when we actually look at the religions of the world, they are all equally valid contexts of experiencing, what John Hick refers to as, the 'Real' (transcendent reality). Out of all my online searching, sadly enough, Wikipedia provided the most thorough and complete synopsis of Hick's views on pluralism and since I am not writing an academic research paper, they will suffice.

"...Hick claims that knowledge of the Real (his generic term for Transcendent Reality) can only be known as it is being perceived. For that reason, absolute truth claims about God (to use Christian language) are really truth claims about perceptions of God... Furthermore, because all knowledge is rooted in experience, which is then perceived and interpreted into human categories of conception, cultural and historical contexts which inevitably influence human perception are necessarily components of knowledge of the Real. This means that knowledge of God and religious truth claims...are culturally and historically influenced; and for that reason should not be considered absolute" (Wikipedia.com).

Paul Tillich, like Hick, was a Christian Theologian who did an extensive amount of work in the philosophy of Christian existentialism. He also promoted the concept of religious pluralism and philosophized about salvation and universalism similar to Hick. With both of these well established views in the philosophy of religion and pluralism--I set out to analyze and add my own ideas upon them. Although it is quite lengthy in comparable to most of my posts, it will provide anyone who cares a little more insight into my pluralistic views about religion. The final essay can be found below through the link below.

Relgious Pluralism

Dr. Jesus! Make This Cyst Dissolve!

2009-05-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

Do you think God really gives a crap about peoples monetary stability, when 963 million people around the are hungry each day? When one child dies from malnutrition every five seconds? If these lump sums of 'miracle money' are the work of God, then I think God really needs a reality check. It also scare me that these people are reporting alleviation form extremely dangerous maladies, by simply drinking some water from the 'Prophet Peter Popoff.' Either these people are just dishonest actors (which is most likely the case), the people never had ailments to start out with, or they have deluded themselves into believing they are healed when they are in fact still sick. The latter is the most dangerous, if these people do really believe that drinking water can heal cancer, cysts, neurological disorders, high blood pressure, and lung cancer then these people are in much danger in the future of not receiving medical assistance when they really do need it. Attributing ailments and disease to 'Satan' is neither logical nor necessary anymore, scientific research has shown us the true causes of these illnesses.

Happy Cat wepted

2009-05-07T23:20:00.000-07:00

Some people have way too much time on their hands. I recently came upon the LOLcat Bible Translation Project, it is just too ridiculously funny. The project's missions statement reads as follows,

"Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly. This is the lolcat Bible Translation Project, a project dedicated to translating the entire Bible into lolspeak. The Project started in July of 2007 and so far we have most of the Bible translated!" (lolcatbible.com).

I am usually a terribly late with respect to hearing about online fads, so this may not be news (I was just recently introduced to the GI Joe PSA's by Fensler Films and icanhascheezburger.com), however the LOL Cat Bible was just what I needed.

The Hunt For Gollum

2009-05-07T16:04:00.000-07:00

Tolkien and Lord Of The Rings fans, if you have not already heard, the independent film group Independent Online Cinema have finished their work on The Hunt For Gollum. The film, which is not affiliated with New Line Cinema, is an "unofficial not for profit film by a group of enthusiast filmmakers" which chronicles the journey of Heir of Isildur to find Gollum and uncover truth about the Ring (thehuntforgollum.com). With outstanding cinematic qualities, a wonderful soundtrack, and superb screenplay, it will be a classic Lord of The Ring's film for 'LOTR' aficionados.

What Jesus Did Not Do

2009-05-07T15:35:00.000-07:00

Although this is very funny, it is not far from the truth. It is comical, yet cited with Biblical evidence. I think the main premise of the video is to point out all of the things that Jesus failed to do, as well as impart scripture that exposes the incredibly vengeful and hateful threatenings the Christian God made throughout the old testament. Many of the divine and miraculous feats the Bible reports Jesus executed, have appeared in many religious texts throughout history, many years before. Why do Christians question the validity of other instances of virgin births in older religious texts, yet accept the virgin birth of Jesus?

Jesus' highly-implausible miraculous feats, did nothing but lead credulous people to justify their beliefs with irrational claims, that besides creating a false sense of eternalization, do nothing for humanity yet create divides and blockades to further the development of morality, ethics, science, and reason.

Because I reject the divinity of Jesus and the sanctity of religious scripture, the argument of redemption through the deicide of Jesus, will most likely not suffice.

How To Handle Criticism

2009-05-05T23:47:00.000-07:00

Unreasonable Faith is a great blog/website by skeptic Daniel Florien which covers religion, science, and current events for freethinkers of all ages and stages. I am now a daily reader and cannot get enough. He recently addressed a question I prompted and could not have done a better job answering it. The question discusses how to deal with criticism and can be found through the preceding link: unreasonablefaith.com

Richard Dawkins' Hate Mail

2009-04-26T22:43:00.000-07:00

Richard Dawkins sits down to read us some of his hate mail. By far one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Some Christians give us such a wonderful message of hope. I hope you get hit by a church van and die slowly, Richard Dawkins!

God Needs a Lesson in Botany...

2009-04-20T20:54:00.000-07:00

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Notice anything peculiar about these sequential passages in Genesis, which describe the creation of light transmitting objects and vegetation? Most likely... your answer would be 'no.' However, with the slightest bit of analyzation, something very unsound comes to 'light.' God, having created the heavens and the earth, water, and light, days before; next sought out to create plants, grass and trees plentiful with fruit. Yet, God made one dozy mistake. God created the plants before the light transmitting objects (ie. moon and stars) could transfer light, he previously created, to drive their photosynthetic processes. God...? Why would you make such a blatant mistake? If this is really is your infallible word, why would you belittle yourself, to a childish understanding of the workings of Your creation? Maybe I am being too easily stuck on technicalities. But, if this is really were the impeccable words of our Universes' designer, I would have to say that I would be highly skeptical of their infallibility--and would necessarily follow with the conclusion that they are not indeed the words of God. But, instead, the words of incredibly stupid and credulous people, who didn't understand a grain about the physical world. It is only natural that the authors of the Bible would make these sequential mistakes, and that millions of people would believe them. Organized science had not yet emerged. People had not the slightest understanding of disease transmittance, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, lightening and obviously, chemical energy (just to name a few). Through their misunderstanding, they created highly implausible and childish explanations for them. Put these people in environments with limited resources and an even more limited understanding of the physical world, and there is no reason they would not grasp it wholeheartedly.

I am not saying that because of this single argument, that the infallibility of the Bible is undermined. All I am arguing, is that if this were God's book; God's infallible word. Could he not have done a better job of getting the facts and the science straight?

"Teapot Atheism"

2009-04-18T11:08:00.000-07:00

Just because you cannot disprove the existence of something, does not mean that it does indeed exist. There are a myriad of things in our universe we could not disprove and just as many explanations for the existence of our world that we could come up with, that are just as plausible as that of a deity. Bertrand Russel's analogy of 'Tea Pot Atheism' illustrates this argument.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time" (Bertrand Russell).

Richard Dawkin's adds to this idea and brings it into modern light in the BBC series "The Root of All Evil?"

Are you afflicted with ODS?

2009-04-18T10:33:00.001-07:00

I recently stumbled upon (not with the use of StumbleUpon) Media Matters and thought it was something worth sharing. Media Matters for America is a "Web-based, not-for-profit... progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (mediamatters.org). They provide up to date commentary on conservative delusions in mainstream media. It is great to see a research organization who critically analyzes information, in rapid time, with the aim of providing it's readers and viewers a second chance to assess claims made by conservative institutions.

'Free Will' and 'The Problem of Evil'

2009-04-17T17:15:00.000-07:00

On January 15th 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 safely landed in the Hudson River en route to North Carolina, just six minutes after taking off. This was indeed a statistically improbable event and in most instances, was viewed as a 'miracle' to most people of faith. Many faith-based people attributed the safe landing of Flight 1549 to the 'hand of God.' This struck me as odd...

If it is permissible to apply beneficence to an occurrence that cannot be easily explained, it is just as necessary to apply malice, carelessness, or indifference to an adverse incident or phenomenon. You cannot pick and choose instances where the 'hand of God' intervenes or where you find God's will self-evident. The answer that "God works in mysterious ways" or "it is all in God's plan" does nothing to further resolve the argument. This is a circular answer that gets us nowhere. To believe in the literal translation of the Bible (as most Christians would have to agree), you must also have to agree, that any evil, or negative incidents in the world, are also caused by God's predetermination. The bible states:

"You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" (Psalm 139:16).

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30).

"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation" (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Believing the literal truth of these claims, one must infer that all human cause and effect is the pre-determined work of God. This biblical idea is antithetical to the belief that all humans are inherently born with free will. In "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren, this idea is only exemplified:

"Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance choosing the exact time of your birth and death...God also planned where you'd be born and where you'd live for his purpose. Your race and nationality are no accident. God left no detail to chance. He planned it all for his purpose...he planned it all with great precision...Nothing in your life is arbitrary. It's all for a purpose."

As a Christian, I once nodded in coherence to these claims, yet somehow convinced myself that the freeness of human life was a plausible belief. Simply stating that "one can stray from God's plan," as many do, is disjointed. It is very evident in Biblical scripture that humans are in no way in control of their being. As a skeptic I fervently reject this premise.

The idea of sin (similar to the idea of 'God's plan') also neglects to shift the blame of evil from God and onto man. If we literally interpret the passages of the Bible, we must accept the fact that our lives are pre-determined. Before we were born, salvation was bestowed rightly upon those who were chosen. We have not but the slightest control over our lives.

If the belief in a theistic God is accepted and supported by the claims in the Bible, then we must not have free will and are in no way responsible for our actions, choices, and beliefs. Abortions and even doctor-assisted suicides must be part of God's grand scheme. This relieves doctors and patients of their responsibility--it must all be in 'God's plan.' If God is responsible for the good, he must also be as equally responsible for the bad.

Today...I Recycled My Bible

2009-04-16T12:44:00.000-07:00

I thought I would contribute to the efforts of environmentalism--rather than continue to swallow the intolerant, bigoted, and spiteful claims, that flow form every discordant chapter of the Christian Bible. However, I do find a great deal of inspiration from the teachings of Jesus Christ. He was an exemplary moral teacher and I am sure, an exceptional man. I can accept him as this, but have no logic reason or evidence to suppose that he was anything greater.

Hello! I went from an upright, God fearing Christian to a moral-less, anti-religious Agnostic in three weeks! Through this blog, I will attempt to raise my own, as well as others, consciousness about unconscious claims we all make about religion each day.

Thanks for reading!

Ideally, I will attempt to post weekly. Realistically, it may be fortnightly.

(This is not literal... it is satire...)